August 3, 2016

"... according to figures released by his campaign on Tuesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics," The NYT reports.

All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton, and ended with an enormous pool of $74 million in cash on hand....

The figures mark a major achievement in Mr. Trump’s campaign, which until recent months was largely funded by a trickle of hat and T-shirt sales and by Mr. Trump’s wallet. And they suggest Mr. Trump has the potential to be the first Republican nominee whose campaign could be financed chiefly by grass-roots supporters pitching in $10 or $25 apiece, echoing the unprecedented success of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the Democratic presidential primary.

89 comments:

The revenue is far smaller without 1% contributions, special and peculiar interest "donations", and unverified foreign transactions. Trump may be the first candidate to demonstrate the viability of campaign finance reform. Keep it American and representative.

I get the feeling Trump will continue to rely on free TV airtime along with his rallies and press conferences. Anything to stay in the headlines on the cheap. Then a huge, more conventional ad buy in late September/October. I doubt his strategy works, but it's the strategy that seems to suit him best.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World."

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

If it is Americans sending Trump money, it's a pretty good con. He gets to to use the money to pay off the loans he made to himself earlier in the campaign, which could be why he's got so much cash on hand. If he spends it all, he can't pay himself off.

But this business of donations of $10 or $25 apiece is not going to work. Look at Bernie, he only asked for $27 when everyone knows a socialist revolution costs at least $35. Trump needs to cool hand luke it up to at least $50 to show that capitalists are better than socialists.

The idea of the $27 was that you were supposed to do it 100 times to get up to the $2,700 maximum while still giving the appearance of the campaign being financed by grass roots donations. I suppose you send in $10 270 times, maybe that's Trump's game.

Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...Wouldn't a bunch of small (under the number (200) where donor names must be publicly reported) donations be the best way for the Russians to fund Trump?8/3/16, 6:32 PM

The way a pro would do it is form a charitable foundation, with the board controlled by the Trump family. Call it the Trump Global Initiative. Said foundation could then funnel money from foreign "donors" to Trump-supporting activists by claiming that they were funding research, or pilot "get out the vote" campaigns. Of course, to keep the illusion that the Trump Global Initiative was not selling American political influence to foreign entities on a cash and carry basis, it would be vital to keep all email communications secure from FOIA requests.

But it is a coincidence when the Russians hack DJT's adversaries and DJT just happens to have tons of under-the-disclosure-limit donations at the same time DJT expresses support for Russia's geopolitical wet dreams.

Yoo-hoo, guys! After the Soviet Union fell it was the good, patriotic thing to do to reach out to the Russians & bring them into the late 20th C. All sorts of businesses developed ties to Russia, which was one of the up & coming BRIC nations after all.

Sadly, after Yeltsin came Putin, & things started to turn ugly business wise. But, "what's a mother to do?" Russia had oil, gas, a lock on quite a few rare earths, granite, etc. After the oil boom, they had money to spend, too.

If "Business ties to Russia" are evil, then a lot of American business is going to burn in hell. And they'll have no shortage of European companies frying with them.

A program overseen by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of the "reset" with Russia wound up enhancing Russia's military technology and funneling millions of dollar to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer and the Government Accountability Institute he heads.

The report says both the U.S. Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that the program, intended to support Russia's version of Silicon Valley, was exploited to improve Russia's military capability.

It is pretty funny that the famous "Reset Button" really said Overcharge! Calling Dr Freud!

Where is the proof of that? Just curious. Because I doubt there is any. This was most likely a leak by a disgruntled Sanders supporter. This stinks to high heaven of a distraction campaign, you know, like the missile strike on Afghanistan to distract from Monica, which pissed them off and they returned the favor a year and a half later in 2001?

Russia cares about the price of oil. Their whole economy runs on it. There is one candidate who is all in on global warming who wants to raise the price of oil by restricting North American production wherever she can. She killed Keystone.

Please tell me what Trump could offer Russia that Hillary hasn't already handed them. Are they pissed at her because she "overcharged" them?

MOTIVE: Given their mutual and very public bromance, Putin would much prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton one, and the timing suggests the leak was timed for maximum embarrassment to the Democrats and their presumptive nominee. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said the campaign was told by cyber experts that Russian hackers stole and released the emails to help Trump. "I don't think it's coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here," said Mook, "and I think that's disturbing."

One of the ways that Putin got wealth and power was by controlling the issue of export licenses. In the 1990s, Russia had a controlled internal price on a commodity (like oil or metal) that was a fraction of the global price. So you could make a mint if you could buy at the internal price and then export your commodity to the world market. But you needed an export license for such a transaction, and Putin quickly identified and brought under his control the officials who could issue these licenses.A typical operation would be to grant an export license for oil, on the condition that the profits be used to buy food and medicine for the poor. The oil is exported, the profits pocketed, but the promised food and medicine is a fraction of the pledged amount, or never arrives at all. Complainers were placed under arrest for corruption because they accepted a small commission from the proceeds of the transaction.Once the complainer is in a state prison awaiting trial, he can be killed by another inmate, so Putin can say he was not responsible. One technique used to pressure a prisoner is to have their family accused of trying to smuggle contraband to the prisoner, so the family members either have to stop visiting him or they will risk arrest themselves.

"I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night," Trump said, despite the fact that he and Putin had been interviewed in separate countries at different times for the same news program.

One of the weaknesses of Clinton trolls is that they are restricted to scripts. It makes them unpersuasive. Whoever wrote those scripts doesn't know that Hillary has been in bed with the Russians, even though it appeared in a front page story in the New York Times.

I am not a Trumpist. I will vote Constitution Party in November.But I find it amusing that the attacks on Trump can be easily redirected towards Hillary.Khan says mean things about Trump, but it was Hillary who voted to for the "mistaken war" that got Khan's killed. Trump says nice things about Putin, Hillary gives Trump favors in return for money while she is secretary of state. Hillary's fans accuse Trump of sharp business practice, but Hillary, of course, was designer of the Whitewater land scam. Trump lies because he is a braggart. Hillary lies because she needs to stay out of prison. Trump wants to be able to sue newspapermen who say mean things about him. Hillary wants to imprison anyone other than newspapermen who say mean things about her.

t's such a shame that Russia is fully and aggressively supporting DJT. If Putin wasn't trying to sink HRC and show love for DJT you'd seem a lot less desperate.

I am providing evidence, you are just insinuating stuff without proof. So I would say it is you that is desperate, and, as we said before, projecting.

You tell me why Hillary did all of those favors for Russia and took all of those millions. Let's hear the innocent explanation of that one. Then maybe you can start proving the stuff you are claiming. That would be a great next step.

I only care about the truth. The truth is in on Hillary. She is a bald-faced liar.

He gets to to use the money to pay off the loans he made to himself earlier in the campaign, which could be why he's got so much cash on hand. If he spends it all, he can't pay himself off.

Trump paid off his nearly $50 million campaign loan for the primary with his own money before his first Presidential fundraiser. So your accusations are totally false. He matched the first $2 million in donations in his first Presidential fundraiser.

I donated to his first campaign fundraiser but didn't get the email about the others. Apparently Google has been sending those campaign letters to the spam folder even for people who have them marked as not spam. Tricky people, those Google guys.

You may think that you've proved Russia is trying to sabotage HRC because they're doing her a return favor. Insane logic is as insane logic does.

But, Russia is sabotaging HRC precisely because they cannot control her. The proof is in the pudding. They're sabotaging her because Russia discovered that deals w/ Putin's oligarchs funneling dough to Trump has proven to place to invest. HRC is committed to NATO even w/ late payers. HRC doesn't give Putin a pass for killing journalists (see the DJT quote up thread). HRC doesn't give in to Russia's POV re Ukraine.

"Tricky people, those Google guys."Google's Eric Schmidt was technical adviser to Obama. For free! What a public minded fellow!If anyone can stop Trump from making America a plutocracy, it is billionaires like Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, and Meg Whitman!

You may think that you've proved Russia is trying to sabotage HRC because they're doing her a return favor. Insane logic is as insane logic does.

There you go, trying to steal first base again. I don't have any proof either way about Russia trying to sabotage Hillary. Neither do you. Your reading comprehension not that high, huh? That must be quite a burden for you in life.

"But, Russia is sabotaging HRC precisely because they cannot control her."All those hacked emails ought to help. Hillary Clinton: terrified that the Americans that pay her salary might see her work emails, unconcerned that the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Iranians, might see her work emails.You just can't do it, PB&J. There is nothing Trump can be accused of that Hillary can't be just as truthfully accused of. But Trump worked for himself, while Hillary was supposed to be working for us.Why did Obama appoint Hillary Secretary of State? Any ideas on that?

This is the perfect time to remind people how Hillary got here. It all starts with Bill and Hillary in Arkansas, before she accepted the $100,000 bribe disguised as a series of winning cattle futures trades. Before Whitewater morphed from a failed S&L and was confused in the public mind with tawdry trysts underneath the Presidential desk, Whitewater was a piece of land.

Here is James Taranto from April 21,2015:

It involved an Arkansas land development known as Whitewater that was partly owned by Bill and Hillary Clinton and managed by Mrs. Clinton, then the state’s first lady. …

“Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in all—totaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.“Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewater—teachers, farmers, laborers, and retirees—made payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back. According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed.”

This was her beginning. Since then she has gone on to much bigger things. If the Clintons reoccupy public housing I am confident they will exit as billionaires.

Once a cheap grifter, always a cheap grifter. Hillary and Bill went from cheating the little people to selling their country ... big time.

Hillary is a reincarnation of Quintus Servilius Caepio, a Roman general who found the treasure known as the gold of Tolosa and had the escort that was supposed to guard it massacred, stole it and became incredibly wealthy as a result. Hillary not the first to steal to get wealthy. What's sickening is that so many people support this thief for ideological reasons. They are the men with empty chests.

How "late"? 20 years? 30? Believe me, calling out freeloading foreign countries is absolutely not an issue that hurts Trump with the average American. NATO has long been an American funded welfare program for the benefit of Western Europe. Time to grow up.

Actually several. Apparently these people do not think that Trump is Putin's puppet, do not think he is insane, do not think he will quit the race, do not think he will resign if elected and I'm willing to bet they do not think he will bring the nation a fascist dictatorship.

The best thing about a Trump victory would be repudiation of the "progressive" slime machine at a national level.

Since PB&J doesn't want to answer my question asking why he believes Obama appointed Hillary Secretary of State, I feel free to make informed speculation.

Obama vocally opposed the Iraq War. Hillary, and her Obama-appointed successor, John Forbes Kerry, both voted for the war enthusiastically. Many democrats consider the Iraq War to be the worst foreign policy disaster ever committed by any country in the history of the universe.Nevrtheless one inevitably concludes that whether Hillary voted Yea or nay on the Iraq War had no bearing on Obama's decision to appoint Hillary of John Forbes Kerry Secretary of State. Eyebrow raising, to say the least.

Let's look at applicable experience.Hillary was elected US Senator from New York, in 2000 and 2006. She was elected in 2000 on the strength of her husband's name. She had never held office before 2001, either elected or appointed. As senator she passed three bills, all of which were about renaming public buildings. She also tried to get some days named 'xyz' day or whatever.

There was no reason for Hillary to be considered better qualified to be Secretary of State than any other lawyer-turned-politician.

So we are left with political considerations. Hillary was obama's bitter opponent for the Democrat nomination in 2008. If she remained NY senator, she would free to run against him for the nomination in 2012, using her husband's still significant political assets within the Democrat party. By appointing her Secretary of State, he made that contest highly unlikely. If she served until 2012, there would be no daylight between them. If she was fired or resigned before that time, she wouldn't be able to run for president with the advantages of a sitting senator.

I like the "political considerations" theory because it explains the disastrous foreign policy and, *ahem* email mismanagement scandal of her term as Secretary of State. She was too inexperienced for the post; Libya turned into a failed state, our ambassador in Bengazi was torn to pieces by an al Qaida mob, and Iraq was abandoned to the mercies of the Mullahs of Iran and the holy warriors of ISIS.

I'm fickle, so I moved on to a newer thread w/ a tiny bit of attention left of this thread.

As you noted, and as was noted when she was picked, a lot of folks thought that BHO decided on HRC to ice her out of a run in 2012. And, BHO had already irked some of the PUMAs by not giving her the VP slot. I don't read minds, but that's a reasonable assessment.

Also, he probably had some hope that she'd be capable in the position. But, I doubt that he had much more than 50% hope that she'd do great things since he'd spent plenty of time (in the primary fight) noting that she hadn't ever achieved anything noteworthy. He probably did think, w/ good reason, that she would be dutiful and follow through w/ whatever direction he charted. She may not have done much on her own, but she did know how to follow and stand by her man. It's not a stretch to think that BHO would appreciate someone who would follow his direction, which he may consider to be near infallible.

Penis Balls, and Jism is pushing the Russian bullshit from the DNC, I see. But you probably thought it was Peanut Butter and Jelly,too, didn't you? Alex doesn't say "Tits" now, but he might when the WikiLeak memos come out showing that Hillary armed ISIS and Trump moves to a 80% chance of winning the election.

I'd find this impressive if I believed anything coming from the Trump campaign. Sad that we're at this point.

I'm also a bit surprised anyone would give him their hard earned money when he made it clear his plan is to first pay himself back so he can make a profit off this campaign. But I suppose there's always someone ready to send cash to that Nigerian prince, so this is no different.

Unknown said,"Well enjoy it Terry, that unearned moral superiority. If Hillary gets in you may never vote again. Tell me how wrong I am"

Oh I don't think it will be that bad. If she wins you'll still get to vote. Your vote won't be counted if you vote for anything other than Democrat however. When Hillary becomes president the Illinois corruption that Obama has brought to Washington will be firmly entrenched and part of our national character. The unmaking of the republic will be complete."We don't want nobody what nobody sent" will be our national motto.

Rusty said:"Your vote won't be counted if you vote for anything other than Democrat however."I think we will end up with everything linked to a civil right, with the government using non-democratic institutions to tell you what those rights are. Votes will be plentiful, but not for governance. You will be made to vote to choose whether your recycling bins are blue or green, but not whether or not there should be mandatory recycling.100% turnout! What a great democracy!

Funny how PB&J can answer questions about Democrat inside baseball, but can't explain why Hillary took millions from Russia and made decisions in favor of the very people giving her money, while she was Secretary of State.

"It's official, Brandon is an asshole who is impervious to reason or fact. "

You can always spot the lesser lights among the Trumpkins in that they cannot argue without personal insults towards other commenters. They also assume that when Trump says he's going to write off what he put into his campaign as a donation and not a "loan" from himself, that he won't turn around later and pay himself back. Clearly some people don't know squat about their own candidate and are lined up in the latest version of Trump University.

I do hope though that if you did waste your money on this clown you're not depriving your kids of lunch money.

"Also, according to open secrets, trump has contributed 50mm to his campaign. Not loaned, contributed."

I get that he said that, but is there anything preventing him from turning around and saying "that's a loan now, and I'll pay myself back from other funds in the campaign"? Is he legally prevented from doing that?

In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union a global elite formed dedicated to selling to two new huge markets. It could have been done ways but as a matter of fact that elite sold out the workers in their own nations. That is how it was done. China, Russia - do as you please about protecting workers on the job, about social security, about the environment, about sex selection of girl babies, about underpaying internal migrants - just do as you please.

US, Europe - submit a plan projecting every impact from anything whenever you want to do anything, hire incompetent people if a quota isn't filled, pay $15.00 hr for McFlippers and compete with areas exempted from those rules due to lobbying by a former American President and his highly placed wife and by others following this stinking example.

Oh, the American economy has no jobs now? Yes it does, the current President says so. Though why he bothers to explain anything to a piece of racist-xeno-phobo garbage like you, - well it just shows how compassionate he is.

And there is a candidate who is also a piece of racist-xeno-phobo garbage just like you. His name is Donald Trump. Racist-xeno-phobos of the world unite! You have nothing to lose anymore.

I get that he said that, but is there anything preventing him from turning around and saying "that's a loan now, and I'll pay myself back from other funds in the campaign"? Is he legally prevented from doing that?

Normally I wouldn't have to ask, but Trump does have a history.8/4/16, 7:46 AM

So you're ignorant, and snotty about it. That is one definition of asshole.

JH has corroborated me, or rather, I cited him and his cite of Open Source with the facts, which it seems you cannot understand. I'd tell you that yes, the sent being discharged means no backsies, but even if you could comprehend and accept it, you wouldn't let it change your thinking. That's another definition of asshole.

I don't call many others with whom I disagree here assholes. Just you this week. Thanks for the verification.

Blessed Silence from Don Juannabe. Your third sign of assholery is, as Quint said to Hooper, that you haven't got the education to admit when you're wrong. But as I said, at least you've shut up, so that's pretty fair compensation.